Trooper who arrested woman in 'Troopergate' case testifies at Ethics hearing

BOSTON - The state trooper whose 2017 arrest report of a judge’s daughter preceded the "Troopergate" scandal took the stand Friday at the State Ethics Commission hearing into the matter.

Trooper Ryan Sceviour, center, testifies at the ongoing state Ethics Commission hearing in Boston Friday.
Trooper Ryan Sceviour, center, testifies at the ongoing state Ethics Commission hearing in Boston Friday.

Trooper Ryan Sceviour testified for about three hours about the decisions he made when he arrested the woman for impaired driving following an Oct. 16, 2017, highway crash.

The trooper said he had become concerned before writing his report about special treatment he perceived the woman as receiving when she was bailed. He denied accusations from lawyers defending the public officials facing ethics charges that his concern drove him to gratuitously include explicit statements the woman allegedly made in the report.

“Absolutely not,” he replied when a lawyer for Maj. Susan Anderson, one of his former bosses, accused him of improperly including remarks out of anger.

Anderson, former State Police Col. Richard D. McKeon Jr., Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr and Senior First Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey Travers are being accused by Ethics Commission lawyers of trying to improperly remove statements Sceviour wrote in his report from public record.

Commission lawyers allege the officials attempted to swap the original report Sceviour filed in court with a revised report McKeon and Anderson ordered Sceviour to create.

The alleged attempt failed when a court clerk refused to allow it, the commission alleges, and instead the report was redacted in the courtroom.

Commission lawyers allege officials’ attempts to remove sexually explicit statements Sceviour attributed to the daughter broke civil ethics laws, arguing they would not have done the same for others.

Defense lawyers for the officials have argued they did nothing improper. They have not conceded a plot to swap the documents, and have said they acted in accordance with ethical and legal responsibilities to protect the fair trial rights of an arrested person.

Sceviour concerned after bail money returned to judge

Sceviour testified Friday that he became concerned the woman he arrested was receiving special treatment after a bail commissioner returned cash to her father.

He testified that, when he gave a bail commissioner information to be used to set the woman’s bail, he did not tell the commissioner about her familial ties.

The woman’s father, Westborough District Court Judge Timothy M. Bibaud, who was then the top judge in Dudley District Court, came to the Holden State Police barracks and paid the $240 - $200 for bail and $40 for a bail fee - the commissioner had set, Sceviour said.

But when the commissioner learned the woman was the judge’s daughter, she returned the $200 bail to Bibaud, Sceviour said, and was upset that Sceviour had not told her about the tie.

“I said, ‘I don’t have to,’ ” Sceviour recalled telling the bail commissioner, whose name he said he did not recall. “She said, ‘Well, I’m going to give him back his money, being Judge Bibaud.’ ”

Bibaud has never been accused of requesting special treatment or of any wrongdoing in connection with his daughter’s case.

On cross-examination, a defense lawyer noted that one of the elements to be considered when setting bail is a person’s ties to the community.

Sceviour testified he was not familiar with that provision, which is routinely cited in court documents when bail is considered. He did not dispute a suggestion by the lawyer, Michael Rusconi, that information of that type could be helpful to a bail commissioner attempting to set a bail amount.

Sceviour testified that after his interaction with the bail commissioner, he became concerned about special treatment and potential impacts the arrest might have on his career.

Report scrutinized

Sceviour testified that he wrote his report in its entirety after the bail was set, and that one of three lines superiors later ordered him to remove from his report was written in part with concern for his career in mind.

Specifically, Sceviour testified that the concern “played slightly” into his decision to include an alleged quotation from the woman that her father was a judge and he was going to “kill” her.

Sceviour said he believed including the quote provided “a layer of insulation” for his career - he did not elaborate on why - but added that it was not the only reason he included it.

The quotation, he said, was pertinent because of training that instructed him to include anything that could be relevant to the case.

The quote - and others he included regarding sexually explicit statements the woman allegedly made - spoke to the state of mind, and possible consciousness of guilt, of a person he was accusing of drunken and drugged driving, he said.

The sexually explicit statements he quoted the woman as making involved the manner in which she allegedly acquired drugs, as well as alleged offers of favors for leniency.

Defense lawyers questioned the need to include the statements, pointing out there was a "ton" of other evidence, including the woman's own admissions, drug paraphernalia found in her car and a .22 Breathalyzer reading.

Sceviour said he believed the statements went to the woman's state of mind and could also be relevant if prosecutors wished to pursue other charges. He acknowledged that some of the statements themselves went to proving crimes there was already evidence for, but said he did not believe that precluded their inclusion.

“I just didn’t know there was a cap on probable cause,” Sceviour said at one point as a defense lawyer pressed the issue, adding he included the information “so that the DAs office could have a successful prosecution.”

The woman ultimately admitted sufficient facts existed for a guilty finding, lawyers noted. Sceviour agreed her prosecution was not hindered by any actions the defendants took.

However, Sceviour said he felt the actions taken within State Police were improper, starting with the “wildly inappropriate” act of sending a trooper to his house on his day off to have him revise his report.

Commission lawyers played for Sceviour a voicemail he said had been left on his phone prior to the trooper knocking at his door.

“You are to immediately code 7 (report) to the barracks per the colonel,” retired Lt. James Fogarty, the Holden station commander at the time, is heard saying. “It has something to do with an arrest report - a judge’s daughter.”

Sceviour testified that he drove an hour and a half from his home to the station, where, he said, Fogarty issued him a “negative” observational report for what he had written.

Sceviour said both Fogarty and the sergeant who had approved his report, who also received an observational report, told him it was not a big deal and everything would be OK.

“He said I did nothing wrong,” Sceviour said of Fogarty, adding that he was told it would be “taken out” of his record in a year.

Refused to sign report

Sceviour said Fogarty asked him to sign the observational report, but that he refused.

“I think my concern was the avenue they were taking. It seemed very nefarious,” Sceviour said.

Sceviour testified he agreed to revise his arrest report to remove three statements Anderson handed him on a sheet of paper after his union representative informed him he could be written up for insubordination and possibly fired if he refused.

Sceviour said he recommended that the report be marked “revised” because he did not believe it was lawful to alter a report without doing so.

He testified that, to his knowledge, once a report is amended in the state police’s electronic system, it overrides the original report.

He said he accordingly typed a note that the report was revised before excising the statements he was ordered to remove and submitting the report for approval.

Commission lawyers alleged when they brought the ethics charges in 2020 that the officials accused of wrongdoing wanted the daughter’s statements to “disappear.”

Sceviour filed a federal and civil lawsuit in 2017 making many of the same allegations the Ethics Commission would later lodge. The federal suit was dismissed, while state police and Early settled a state lawsuit Sceviour filed for $40,000 in 2019.

The top district court judge in Massachusetts, Paul C. Dawley, testified Thursday that the first time he learned of the revised report's existence was in news reports.

Dawley testified he had communicated with Early and the top district court judge in Worcester about the woman’s case on the same day in which commission lawyers allege the illegal swap with the revised report was attempted.

Dawley said he was told about, and gave instructions regarding, the redaction of the impounded document - a separate action commission lawyers allege happened after the alleged swap failed.

As lawyers for the commission noted Friday, an independent investigation state police commissioned after McKeon retired cleared Sceviour of any wrongdoing.

Sceviour read aloud Friday a letter “of apology” in which the new colonel wrote he “acted appropriately at all times during the arrest and investigation at issue.”

Denies knowledge of leak

An issue defense lawyers have stressed this week is the leak of the woman’s arrest to the media after the report had been impounded from public view.

Dawley testified Thursday that the leaking of an impounded police report is a serious offense. On the stand Friday, Sceviour denied leaking the report to any media outlet, and said he did not know who did.

Defendants have argued in legal papers that the leak occurred shortly after former state police union head Dana Pullman began calling state officials demanding a meeting about the case.

The ethics hearing is scheduled to resume Wednesday.

Contact Brad Petrishen at brad.petrishen@telegram.com. Follow him on Twitter @BPetrishenTG.

This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Trooper who arrested woman in Troopergate case testifies at hearing